|
HCAL 2364/2018
[2020] HKCFI 1275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2364 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Afzaal Ahmed |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
The Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally in January 2015 and was arrested by police in March 2015 for that offence and for undertaking unauthorized employment for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 15 months. After his discharge from prison and was referred to the Immigration Department for deportation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by the local drug dealer for refusing to participate in their illegal activities.
2. On 5 December 2016 his non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration, while his subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was also dismissed on 11 August 2017.
3. On 26 October 2018 the Applicant filed a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, with which he was seriously late by more than 11 months, but before his application could be dealt with by the court, he wrote a letter to the court requesting to withdraw his application and stated as follows:
“ I Afzaal Ahmed (RBCL/30050/16(CZ)) would like to withdraw the judicial review as my issue in home country Pakistan is solved and I will be safe to return to home country without any torture and case against me.”
4. As such and given that the basis of his non-refoulement claim no longer exists and that it would be safe for him to return to his home country, it would be appropriate that his application be dismissed instead of withdrawn, and accordingly I dismiss his leave application.
Dated the 22nd day of June 2020.
|
(NG Hang-yin)
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must: |
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). |
|
Sent to the Applicant on 22nd June 2020
Afzaal Ahmed
Applicant’s ref. no.:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 22nd June 2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 5551/16/12/198/P1245
The Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1469/16
(formerly RBCZ/14030/15) - T6S74
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|